Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2001 Update

CRS Report for Congress
Interstate Shipment of
Municipal Solid Waste:
2001 Update
July 19, 2001
James E. McCarthy
Specialist in Environmental Policy
Resources, Science, and Industry Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste:
2001 Update
Summary
This report, which replaces CRS Report RL30409, provides updated information
on interstate shipment of municipal solid waste (MSW). Since the late 1980s,
Congress has considered, but not enacted, numerous bills that would allow states to
impose restrictions on interstate waste shipments, a step the Constitution prohibits in
the absence of congressional authorization. Over this period, there has been a
continuing interest in knowing how much waste is being shipped across state lines for
disposal, and what states might be affected by proposed legislation. This report
provides data useful in addressing these questions.
Total interstate waste shipments continue to rise, due to the closure of older
local landfills and the increasing consolidation of the waste management industry.
Between our year 2000 survey (reporting largely 1998 data) and the current survey
(generally reporting 1999 or 2000 data), reported interstate waste imports have
increased by 3.6 million tons, about 13%. In the last seven years, reported imports
have more than doubled, from 14.5 million tons in 1993 to 32.0 million tons in 2000.
Pennsylvania remains, by far, the largest waste importer. The state received 9.8
million tons of municipal solid waste and 2.5 million tons of other non-hazardous
waste from out of state in 2000, more than 30% of the national total for interstate
shipments. Virginia, the second largest importer, received 60% less than the amount
received by Pennsylvania. Michigan, the third largest importer, imported 2.8 million
tons of MSW in fiscal year 2000, an increase of nearly one million tons over the
previous year. Twenty states had increased imports in the current report – the largest
increases occurring in Pennsylvania and Michigan. In all, eight states reported
imports that exceeded one million tons.
While waste imports increased overall, several states (including Indiana, Kansas,
Mississippi, and New Hampshire) reported sharp declines in waste imports.
New York remains the largest exporter of waste, with New Jersey and Illinois
in second and third place. Exports from New York, already nearly 7 million tons per
year, are expected to grow further because of the closure of New York City’s Fresh
Kills Landfill in March 2001.

Contents
Introduction ................................................ 1
Total Shipments.............................................6
States Reporting Increased Imports..............................6
States Reporting Decreased Imports.............................8
Major Exporters............................................8
Net Imports and Exports......................................9
Additional Information........................................9
List of Figures
Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2000 or latest year, in tons......2
Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2000 or latest year, in tons......2
List of Tables
Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2000 or latest year (in tons)......3
Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2000 or latest year (in tons)......4
Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2000 or latest
year (in tons)...........................................5
Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and
Sources of Imported MSW, by State........................10

Interstate Shipment of
Municipal Solid Waste: 2001 Update
Introduction
This report provides updated information on interstate shipment of municipal
solid waste. Concerned about increased waste imports, some states have attempted
to regulate this commerce; federal courts, however, have declared these state
restrictions unconstitutional. If states are to have such authority, congressional action
is required.
Since the late 1980s, Congress has considered, but not enacted, numerous bills¹
that would grant such authority. Over this period, there has been a continuing
interest in knowing how much waste is being shipped across state lines for disposal,
and what states might be affected by proposed legislation. This report provides data
useful in addressing these questions. It updates information provided in earlier CRS²
reports.
Not all states require reporting of waste imports, and very few track exports, so
the available data are incomplete and in some cases represent estimates rather than
actual measurements. From what is known, waste shipments appear to be
concentrated among 25-30 states in the Northeast, Midwest, Southeast, and Pacific
Coast regions (Figures 1 and 2). This report presents information gathered through
telephone contacts with solid waste officials in those states, the District of Columbia,
and the Canadian province of Ontario.
Data obtained from these contacts are summarized in Tables 1, 2, and 3, and
Figures 1 and 2. Table 4 presents additional information, including the names and
telephone numbers of state contacts.

¹ Legislation on interstate shipment of waste has been introduced in every Congress since the
100^th. In the 104^th Congress, the Senate passed S. 534. The bill would have granted states
authority to restrict new shipments of municipal solid waste from out of state, if requested by
an affected local government. In the 103^r^d Congress, both the House and Senate passed
interstate waste legislation (H.R. 4779 and S. 2345), but lack of agreement on common
language prevented enactment. For a discussion of the issues addressed in these bills, see
CRS Report RS20106, Interstate Waste Transport: Legislative Issues.
² This report replaces Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 2000 Update, CRS
Report RL30409. Earlier reports were Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1998
Update, CRS Report 98-689; Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1997 Update,
CRS Report 97-349; Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1996 Update, CRS
Report 96-712; Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste: 1995 Update, CRS Report

95-570; and Interstate Shipment of Municipal Solid Waste, CRS Report 93-743.

Figure 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2000 or latest year, in tons
Amounts in Tons
1,000,000 or greater
500,000 to 999,999
100,000 to 499,999
Less than 100,000

Figure 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2000 or latest year, in tons

Table 1. Imports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2000 or latest year
(in tons)
StateQuantity Imported
^Pennsylvania^a^9,764,147^b
^Virginia^3,891,320
^Michigan^c,d^2,840,338
^Ohio^1,774,134
^Illinois^{d, e}^1,541,913^f
^Indiana^1,439,431
^Oregon^e^1,239,579
^Wisconsin^1,067,926^g
^{South Carolina}^862,925^e
^{New Jersey}^836,154
^Kentucky^626,920
^Nevada^541,400
^{New York}^539,000^e
^{New Hampshire}^538,700^h
^Georgia^515,604^h
^Iowa^485,000^e
^Mississippi^449,821^h
^Kansas^434,000ⁱ
^Arizona^408,718^j
^Tennessee^297,081^k
^{West Virginia}^250,264^e
^Washington^243,292^e
^{New Mexico}^241,771^{e, l}
^Connecticut^239,842
^Alabama^210,000
^Missouri^183,042^e
^Maine^164,527
^Nebraska^122,500^m
^Utah^66,000
^Maryland^{e, n}^62,246^e
^{North Dakota}^54,460
^Texas^e^46,611^h
^{North Carolina}^41,840
^Montana^31,693^e
^{Massachusetts}^29,412^e
^Idaho^17,682^k
^California^11,069
^a^{In addition, Pennsylvania received 2,473,843 tons of other waste (industrial waste, construction/demolition}
^{[C&D] waste, ash, asbestos, and sludge) from out of state at MSW landfills in 2000.}^b
^Virginia^also^imported^580,226^{tons of}^other^waste,^mostly^sludge,^C&D,^ash,^and^industrial^wasteⁱⁿ^2000.^c
^{10/1/99 - 9/30/2000.}^d
^{Converted from cubic yards using 3.3 cu. yds. = 1 ton.}^e
^1999.^f
^Indiana^also^imported^172,410^tons^of^{non-municipal}^solid^waste,^primarily^C&D^and^industrial^wasteⁱⁿ^2000.^g
^{7/1/98 - 6/30/99.}^h
^{7/1/99 - 6/30/2000.}ⁱ
^{4/1/99-3/31/2000.}^j
^{8/1/97 - 7/31/98.}^k
^1998.^l
^{Connecticut import total}^{does not include waste from New York that was received at a Connecticut transfer}
^{station and re-exported to other states for disposal.}^m
^{Utah landfills also imported 299,000 tons of industrial waste.}ⁿ
^{Maryland also imported 469,944 tons of C&D waste.}
^Source^{: CRS, based on telephone interviews with and data provided by state program officials.}

Table 2. Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2000 or latest year
(in tons)
^State^{Quantity Exported}
^{New York}^a^6,807,167
^{New Jersey}^4,158,060
^Illinois^3,145,821^b
^Missouri^1,792,753
^Maryland^1,791,103
^{Ontario, Canada}^1,277,822
^California^1,195,000
^{North Carolina}^1,106,897
^Ohio^1,039,876
^{Massachusetts}^984,558
^{District of Columbia}^978,900^c
^Indiana^908,418
^Washington^832,421
^Minnesota^619,592
^Connecticut^d^554,482
^Pennsylvania^553,570
^Texas^395,067
^Iowa^380,000
^{West Virginia}^305,257
^Louisiana^300,000
^Florida^289,613
^Wisconsin^250,776
^Georgia^250,000
^Tennessee^151,229
^Virginia^150,000
^{Rhode Island}^146,950
^Kentucky^94,171
^Vermont^88,350
^Michigan^85,210
^Alabama^75,000
^Idaho^65,530
^{New Hampshire}^64,000
^{South Carolina}^57,377
^Arkansas^53,860
^Maine^50,862
^Kansas^43,000
^Alaska^27,500
^Delaware^24,618
^Nebraska^18,203
^Oregon^17,682
^Colorado^15,000
^Utah^1,000
^a^A^{s reported by four importing states (Pennsylvania, Virginia, New Jersey, and Ohio). New York’s data}
^{indicate exports of 5,610,000 tons.}^b
^{About 40% of}^Missouri’s^exports^{are believed to be construction and demolition or industrial waste sent to}
^{MSW landfills.}^c
^As^reported^by^four^receiving^states^(Michigan,^Kentucky,^Ohio,^and^Illinois).^{Indiana reported 289,856 tons}
^{of exports, but noted that the amount was incomplete because it only counted exports from transfer stations.}^d
^{As reported by receiving states,}^Connecticut^exports^may^{include waste that originated in New York State,}
^{but was managed at a Connecticut transfer station.}
^Source^:^{CRS, based on telephone interviews with and data provided by state program officials. In many cases,}
^{the amount is based on data compiled by receiving states. See Table 4 entries for additional information.}

Table 3. Net Imports/Exports of Municipal Solid Waste, 2000 or
latest year (in tons)
StateImportsExportsNet Imports/Exports
^Pennsylvania^9,764,147^553,570^9,210,577
^Virginia^3,891,320^150,000^3,741,320
^Michigan^2,840,338^85,210^2,755,118
^Oregon^1,239,579^17,682^1,221,897
^Wisconsin^1,067,926^250,776^817,150
^{South Carolina}^862,925^57,377^805,548
^Ohio^1,774,134^1,039,876^734,258
^Nevada^541,400^-^541,400
^Kentucky^626,920^94,171^532,749
^Indiana^1,439,431^908,418^531,013
^{New Hampshire}^538,700^64,000^474,700
^Mississippi^449,821^-^449,821
^Arizona^408,718^-^408,718
^Kansas^434,000^43,000^391,000
^Georgia^515,604^250,000^265,604
^{New Mexico}^241,771^-^241,771
^Tennessee^297,081^151,229^145,852
^Alabama^210,000^75,000^135,000
^Maine^164,527^50,862^113,665
^Iowa^485,000^380,000^105,000
^Nebraska^122,500^18,203^104,297
^Utah^66,000^1,000^65,000
^{North Dakota}^54,460^-^54,460
^Montana^31,693^-^31,693
^Colorado^-^15,000^-15,000
^Delaware^-^24,618^-24,618
^Alaska^-^27,500^-27,500
^Idaho^17,682^65,530^-47,848
^Arkansas^-^53,860^-53,860
^{West Virginia}^250,264^305,257^-54,993
^Vermont^-^88,350^-88,350
^{Rhode Island}^-^146,950^-146,950
^Florida^-^289,613^-289,613
^Louisiana^-^300,000^-300,000
^Connecticut^239,842^554,482^-314,640
^Texas^46,611^395,067^-348,456
^Washington^243,292^832,421^-589,129
^Minnesota^-^619,592^-619,592
^{Massachusetts}^29,412^984,558^-955,146
^{District of Columbia}^-^978,900^-978,900
^{North Carolina}^41,840^1,106,897^-1,065,057
^California^11,069^1,195,000^-1,183,931
^{Ontario, Canada}^-^1,277,822^-1,277,822
^Illinois^1,541,913^3,145,821^-1,603,908
^Missouri^183,042^1,792,753^-1,609,711
^Maryland^62,246^1,791,103^-1,728,857
^{New Jersey}^836,154^4,158,060^-3,321,906
^{New York}^539,000^6,807,167^-6,268,167
^Source:^CRS,^based^on^telephone^interviews.^{Data subject to numerous qualifications: see notes from Tables}
^{1, 2, and 4.}

Total Shipments
The data show that total interstate waste shipments continue to rise: imports in
the current survey totaled 32.0 million tons, 14.6% of the 220 million tons of
municipal solid waste generated in the United States.³ Between our year 2000 report
(reporting largely 1998 data) and the current survey (reporting generally 1999 and
2000 data), imports increased 3.6 million tons, about 13%. Since 1993, reported
imports have more than doubled, from 14.5 million tons in 1993 to 32.0 million tons
in the current survey.
States Reporting Increased Imports
Twenty states had increased imports of municipal waste in 2000, with the largest
increases occurring in Pennsylvania and Michigan. The increases in these two states,
2.6 million tons and 1.1 million tons respectively, total more than the entire increase
nationally. The other 48 states added together show a net decrease in waste imports
of 0.1 million tons.
The preponderance of these two states in the 2000 waste statistics demonstrates
another element of the emerging picture of interstate waste shipment: 52% of total
municipal waste imports are disposed in just three states: Pennsylvania, Virginia, and
Michigan.
Pennsylvania continues to be the largest waste importer, by far. Disposal
facilities in the state received 9.8 million tons of MSW and 2.5 million tons of other
nonhazardous waste from out of state in 2000. The amounts represented half of all
solid waste disposed in the state and more than 30% of the national total for interstate
shipments.
After Pennsylvania, Virginia is the largest waste importer, with 3.9 million tons
of MSW imports and 580,226 tons of other nonhazardous waste. Despite predictions
that Virginia would receive increased imports as New York’s Fresh Kills landfill
phased out operations, waste imports to Virginia remained roughly the same in the

1998-2000 period.

Michigan, the third largest waste importer in 2000, saw out-of-state waste
disposed in the state grow by more than 1.1 million tons that year. Substantial
amounts of waste come to Michigan from Illinois, Indiana, and other neighboring
states, but the biggest source, accounting for about 45% of Michigan’s out-of-state
waste, is Ontario, Canada. Ontario’s waste shipments are growing as the Toronto
area awards new contracts for waste disposal and closes its two remaining landfills.

³ Because many of the larger importers now differentiate MSW from other non-hazardous
waste imports, we compared total MSW imports to EPA’s national estimate of MSW
generation (220 million tons in the latest available year, 1998). State-reported waste
generation, summarized in BioCycle magazine’s annual survey, is substantially higher (340
million tons in 1998), but is likely to include other nonhazardous waste, provided it was
disposed at MSW facilities. For state-reported data, see Jim Glenn, “The State of Garbage
in America,” BioCycle, April 1999, p. 60.

At the beginning of 1999, Toronto area municipalities were managing about 2.8
million tons of waste annually, of which about 350,000 tons were shipped to
Michigan. By early 2003, however, there will be virtually no local disposal capacity.
Barring unforeseen developments, most of this waste is expected to be sent to
Michigan for disposal.
In other highlights:
!Eight states reported imports exceeding one million tons per year in the latest
year, a figure unchanged from our previous survey, which reported 1998 data.
!Another 20 states had imports exceeding 100,000 tons.
!For the third year in a row, New Jersey is on the list of major importers, with

836,154 tons of MSW imports in 1999 (2000 data were not yet available).

Imports in 1999 grew by more than 250,000 tons. The state is still a major
exporter of waste, as well: according to New Jersey, MSW exports totaled 2.5
million tons in 1999, and receiving states estimate the total exports at more
than 4 million tons in 2000. But the absence of flow control (local government
requirements that waste within their jurisdiction be disposed at local facilities,
which were overturned by the courts in the mid-1990s) has led waste-to-
energy facilities in New Jersey to search for waste to replace local waste now
being disposed elsewhere. As a result, large amounts of waste are entering
New Jersey from New York.
!New York, the nation’s largest waste exporter, also saw rapid growth in waste
imports in 2000. The state imported 539,000 tons of waste in 2000, an
increase from 130,000 in our previous survey.
!Other states reporting major increases in imports were Ohio, Georgia, South
Carolina, and Kentucky. Ohio had a nearly 700,000 ton increase in MSW
imports between 1998 and 2000, Georgia experienced a nearly 300,000 ton
increase over the two years, and South Carolina and Kentucky both had
increases in the 150,000 - 200,000 ton range.
!Although there are no comprehensive data, imports to transfer stations⁴ have
become a political issue in some locations. Transfer stations are generally
located in urban areas and are subject to less stringent regulation than disposal
facilities. Heavy truck traffic and odors have aroused concerns in some
neighboring communities. Both Connecticut and the District of Columbia
report significant amounts of out-of-state waste imported to transfer stations,
then exported to other states for disposal. New York City’s plan to export
waste to transfer stations in New Jersey has raised substantial controversy.⁵

⁴ Transfer stations receive waste from collection trucks, compact it, bale it, and load
it on larger trucks for disposal elsewhere.
⁵ See, for example, “Garbage Plan Ignites Border Tensions,” New York Times, December

3, 1998, p. A27.

States Reporting Decreased Imports
While waste imports increased overall, 14 states reported declines in waste
imports. In half the cases, the declines were small, but seven others had declines
exceeding 100,000 tons. Most notable were: Indiana, where waste imports have
declined 742,000 tons since 1998; Kansas, which declined 366,000 tons and now
imports about half the amount received in the mid-1990s; Mississippi, which declined
about 350,000 tons, due to markedly lower shipments from New Orleans; and New
Hampshire, where new permit conditions imposed on the state’s largest landfill
contributed to a state-wide reduction in imports of almost 280,000 tons.
Major Exporters
Eight states (New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Missouri, Maryland, California,
North Carolina, and Ohio) exported more than one million tons of waste to facilities
in other states in the latest reporting period, and six other states and the District of
Columbia exported more than half a million tons. The Canadian province of Ontario
also exported a substantial amount of municipal waste (1,277,000 tons) to Michigan.
New York, New Jersey, and Illinois remained the largest exporters. Together
these three states accounted for 46% of waste exports nationally.
New York reported exports of 5.61 million tons of MSW in 2000, an increase
of 29% in the 1998-2000 period. But receiving states report even higher totals, 6.82
million tons in 2000. Despite the already large amount, waste exports from New
York are expected to grow further because of the March 2001 closure of New York
City’s Fresh Kills Landfill — the city’s last disposal facility.
New Jersey’s estimated exports, 4.16 million tons, have also grown dramatically.
In New Jersey’s case, the cause of increased exports is the overturning of the state’s
flow control law, which, until 1997, directed much of the state’s waste to high-cost
local facilities for disposal. The state law was overturned and the state exhausted its
appeals in October 1997. Exports have since grown by nearly 2 million tons.
Illinois’ exports, at 3.15 million tons, declined in 2000, after several years of⁶
rapid growth: in 1998, they were about four times the amount reported for 1995.
Most of the exports originate in Cook County (Chicago and its suburbs), which has
a relative shortage of disposal capacity. Illinois as a whole reported a more than
doubling of landfill capacity between 1995 and 2000. But Chicago is located near the
border of both Indiana and Wisconsin; so increases in capacity elsewhere in Illinois
may not affect disposal decisions in the metropolitan area.
Maryland, California, and North Carolina all showed large increases in waste
exports (around 500,000 tons each) in the reporting period. Each of the three appears
to be an example of the growing regionalization of waste disposal markets, as waste
flowed from them to large disposal facilities in adjoining states.

⁶ Illinois, like most states, does not report waste exports. This export estimate was derived
from data provided by neighboring states.

Net Imports and Exports
Table 3 combines import and export data to rank the states by net amounts
imported or exported. The table shows that 15 states (Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Wisconsin, Ohio, Indiana, Georgia, Tennessee, and Iowa among the net importers,
and West Virginia, Connecticut, Washington, Illinois, Missouri, New Jersey, and New
York among net exporters) both export and import in excess of 100,000 tons of
municipal solid waste.
There are several factors at work here. In the larger states, there are sometimes
differences in available disposal capacity in different regions within the state. Areas
without capacity may be closer to landfills (or may at least find cheaper disposal
options) in other states. A good example is Illinois: the Chicago area, which is close
to two other states, exports significant amounts of waste out of state, despite Illinois
being a large waste importer with available capacity in other parts of the state.
As noted earlier, the movement of waste also represents the growing
regionalization and consolidation of the waste industry. In 1999, the three largest
firms (Waste Management, Allied Waste, and Republic Services) accounted for 81%
of total revenues of the industry’s 100 largest firms.⁷ These large firms offer
integrated waste services, from collection to transfer station to disposal site, in many
locations. Often, they ship waste to their own disposal facility across a border, rather
than dispose of it at an in-state facility owned by a rival. As small landfills continue
to close — the number of U.S. landfills declined 51% between 1993 and 1999⁸ — this
trend toward regionalization and consolidation is likely to continue. The amount of
waste being shipped across state lines for disposal may rise in this process.
Additional Information
The remainder of this report consists of a table summarizing waste import and
export data, by state. All 50 states and the District of Columbia are listed in
alphabetical order, with data for the amount of waste exported, destination of exports,
amount of waste imported, source of imports, and a state agency contact for
additional information.

⁷ “The Seventh Annual Waste Age 100,” Waste Age, September 2000, pp. 42-51.
⁸ “The State of Garbage in America,” BioCycle, April 1994, p. 51, and April 2000, p. 36.

CRS-10
Table 4. Amount and Destination of Exported MSW, and Amount and Sources of Imported MSW, by State
^{Amount of}^{Destination of}^{Amount of}^{Sources of}
^State^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported Waste}^{State Contact}
^{No reporting system.}^{Mostly to Mississippi.}^{210,000 tons in 1998,}^{Mostly from Georgia.}^{John Narramore,}
^{Mississippi reported}^{according to}^BioCycle^{AL Dept. of Environmental}
^Alabama^{receiving about 75,000 tons}^{of waste from Alabama in}^{magazine survey. Probably}^{still about the same,}^Management,^{(334) 271-7764}
^{1999. Very small amounts}^{according to the state.}
^{to Georgia and Tennessee.}
^{Alaska estimates exports at}^Washington^None^N.A.^{Glenn Miller,}
^Alaska^{about 27,500 tons.}^{Alaska Dept. of}^{Environmental Conservation}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31051}^{(907) 465-5153}
^g/w^{Very little. There are a}^{Nevada and New Mexico.}^{408,718 tons in the period}^{Almost all from California,}^{David Janke,}
^s^.or^Arizona^{couple of small flows in}^{areas that are not accessible}^{4/1/99 - 3/31/2000.}^{especially the San Diego}^area.^{Arizona Department of}^{Environmental Quality,}
^le^ak^{from the rest of the state.}^{(602) 207-4173}
^://wiki^{53,860 tons reported by}^Missouri^{Arkansas does not measure}^N.A.^{Darlene Hale,}
^h^ttp^Arkansas^{Missouri in 2000.}^{waste imports. The state is}^{not believed to be a major}^{Arkansas Dept. of Pollution}^{Control and Ecology,}
^importer.^{(501) 682-0602}
^{California does not have}^{Primarily Nevada and}^{11,069 tons in 1998 (latest}^N.A.^{Tracy Harper,}
^{current data on waste}^{Arizona. Smaller amounts to}^available).^{CA Integrated Waste}
^California^{exports. Four neighboring}^{states report 1,195,000 tons}^{Washington and Oregon.}^{Management Board,}^{(916) 341-6292}
^{in the most recent reporting}
^{period (1999 or 2000).}
^{CRS estimates exports at}^{Primarily New Mexico.}^{No tracking system. Small}^{Kansas and Nebraska.}^{Glenn Mallory,}
^{15,000 tons. According to}^{amounts may enter from}^{CO Dept. of Public Health}
^{the state, the city of Durango}^{Kansas and Nebraska.}^{and Environment,}
^Colorado^{exports its waste to New}^{Mexico. There are also}^{(303) 692-3445}

^{small amounts crossing the}
^{Kansas and Nebraska}
^borders.

CRS-11
^{Amount of}^{Destination of}^{Amount of}^{Sources of}
^State^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported Waste}^{State Contact}
^{266,230 tons of MSW in}^{Pennsylvania (428,494 tons)}^{239,842 tons in 1999. (Does}^{About equally divided}^{Judy Belaval,}
^{1999, according to}^{Ohio (125,988 tons). Some}^{not include waste from New}^{among Massachusetts,}^{CT Dept. of Environmental}
^Connecticut^{Connecticut. Receiving}^{states report a substantial}^{to New Jersey, also.}^{York that is managed at a}^{Connecticut transfer station}^{Rhode Island, and New}^York.^Protection,^{(860) 424-3237}
^{increase in 2000, to 554,482}^{and re-exported for}
^tons.^disposal.)
^{24,618 tons in 2000,}^{Almost all to Pennsylvania.}^{MSW landfills in the state’s}^N.A.^{Mike Apgar,}
^{according to Pennsylvania}^{3 counties are operated by a}^{Delaware Dept. of Natural}
^{and Virginia.}^{quasi-state authority and are}^{Resources and}
^{prohibited from taking out-}^{Environmental Control,}
^Delaware^{of-state waste. A private}^{facility in the state imports}^{(302) 739-3689}
^{close to 400,000 tons per}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31051}^{year of “dry waste,”}^{primarily construction and}
^g/w^{demolition waste.}
^s^.or
^le^ak^{978,900 tons in 2000,}^{88% to Virginia; 12% to}^{None for disposal.}^Maryland^{Sybil Hammond,}
^{according to Virginia and}^{Pennsylvania.}^{However, D.C. reported}^{D.C. Dept. of Public Works,}
^://wiki^{District of Columbia}^{Pennsylvania.}^{348,500 tons of out-of-state}^{waste were handled at D.C.}^{(202) 673-6833}
^h^ttp^{transfer stations in FY 1999,}
^{then shipped to Virginia for}
^disposal.
^{Florida has no reporting}^Georgia.^{Maybe a little, but disposal}^N.A.^{Peter Goren,}
^{system, but Georgia reported}^{is generally less expensive}^{Florida Dept. of}
^{receiving 289,613 tons from}^{in Georgia, so there’s not}^{Environmental Protection,}
^{Florida in FY 2000. Waste}^{much import.}^{(850) 487-9532}

^Florida^{is exported mostly from}^{border counties, according to}
^{Florida, and represents a}
^{small fraction of the 30}
^{million tons of waste}
^{generated in the state.}

CRS-12
^{Amount of}^{Destination of}^{Amount of}^{Sources of}
^State^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported Waste}^{State Contact}
^{CRS estimates 250,000 tons}^{Mostly to Alabama. South}^{515,604 tons in the period}^{56% from Florida}^{Scott Henson,}
^Georgia^{in 2000, based on reports}^{from Alabama and South}^{Carolina reported 57,377}^{tons of waste shipped to}^{7/1/99 - 6/30/2000, more}^{than double the amount two}^{18% from South Carolina}^{5% from Tennessee}^{Georgia Dept. of Natural}^Resources,
^Carolina.^{Georgia in 1999.}^{years previously.}^{20% not specified.}^{(404) 362-4888}
^{Hawaii does not export}^N.A.^{Hawaii does not import}^N.A.^{Gary Siu,}
^Hawaii^MSW.^MSW.^{Hawaii Dept. of Health,}
^{(808) 586-4244}
^{65,530 tons in 1998.}^{Washington, Oregon, and}^{17,682 tons in 1999,}^Oregon^{Dean Ellert,}
^Idaho^Montana.^{according to Oregon.}^{ID Division of}^{Environmental Quality,}
^{(208) 373-0416}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31051}^{3,145,821 tons in 2000,}^{according to five}^{1.5 million tons of MSW to}^{Indiana (CRS estimate based}^{1,541,913 tons in 1999.}^{(Data converted from cubic}^{75% from Missouri,}^{17% from Iowa,}^{Ellen Gambach,}^{Illinois EPA}
^g/w^{neighboring States, a decline}^{on Indiana data); 904,000}^{yards by CRS.)}^{4% from Indiana and}^{(217) 782-9288}
^s^.or^Illinois^{of 650,000 tons since 1998.}^{tons to Wisconsin; 640,000}^{4% from Wisconsin.}
^le^ak^{tons to Michigan. Small}
^{amounts elsewhere.}
^://wiki^{Four receiving states,}^{Michigan (553,762 tons),}^{1,439,431 tons of MSW in}^{95% from Illinois,}^{Michelle Weddle,}
^h^ttp^{Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky,}^{Ohio (158,764 tons),}^{2000, a decline of 742,000}^{3% from Michigan.}^{IN Department of}
^{and Illinois, report receiving}^{Kentucky (134,215 tons),}^{tons in the past two years.}^{Environmental}
^{a total of 908,418 tons from}^{Illinois (61,677 tons).}^{Indiana also imported}^Management,
^{Indiana. Indiana reported}^{172,410 tons of other waste}^{(317) 233-3834}

^{exports of 289,856 tons in}^{(principally C&D waste and}
^Indiana^{2000, but the state notes that}^{this total does not provide a}^{“special” waste) in 2000, a}^{decline from 639,000 tons in}
^{complete picture of Indiana}^1999.
^{exports since it only includes}
^{waste exported by transfer}
^{stations. It does not include}
^{waste taken directly out of}
^{state by haulers.}

CRS-13
^{Amount of}^{Destination of}^{Amount of}^{Sources of}
^State^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported Waste}^{State Contact}
^{Iowa reports 380,000 tons of}^{About 2/3 goes to Illinois;}^{485,000 tons in FY 2000}^Minnesota^{Tammie Krausman,}
^{exports in FY 2000 (7/1/99 -}^{the remainder goes mostly to}^{(7/1/99 - 6/30/2000).}^{Iowa Dept. of Natural}
^Iowa^6/30/2000).^{Nebraska and Missouri.}^Resources,
^{(515) 281-8382}
^{Kansas reported 43,000 tons}^{Missouri and Oklahoma.}^{434,000 tons in FY 2000}^{Mostly from Missouri.}^{Kent Foerster,}
^Kansas^{of exports in FY 2000}^{(7/1/99-6/30/2000).}^{(7/1/99 - 6/30/2000).}^{Some from southeast}^{Nebraska and Oklahoma.}^{Kansas Dept. of Health and}^Environment
^{(785) 296-1540}
^{No reporting system for}^{Indiana, 19,892 tons;}^{626,290 tons in 2000.}^{45% from Ohio,}^{Derek Gould,}
^{exports, but 2 neighboring}^{Ohio, 74,279. Tennessee}^{21% from Indiana,}^{KY Department for}
^Kentucky^{states reported receiving}^{94,171 tons from KY in}^{and Illinois also receive}^{waste from Kentucky.}^{17% from W. Va.,}^{16% from Tennessee.}^{Environmental Protection}^{(502) 564-6716 x671}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31051}^{2000. Exports to Indiana}
^g/w^{declined by almost 90%.}
^s^.or
^le^ak^{No reporting system for}^Mississippi.^{No tracking system. The}^N.A.^{Dennis Duszynski,}
^{exports, but Mississippi}^{state is not believed to be a}^{LA Dept. of Environmental}
^://wiki^Louisiana^{reports that it received}^{300,000 tons of waste from}^{waste importer.}^{Quality, (225) 765-0249}
^h^ttp^{Louisiana in 1999.}
^{50,862 tons in 1999, plus}^{19,000 tons to New}^{164,527 tons of MSW in}^{74% from Massachusetts;}^{George MacDonald,}
^Maine^{40,412 tons of construction}^{and demolition (C & D)}^{Brunswick (Canada); most}^{of the rest to New}^1999.^{the rest from New}^Hampshire.^{ME Department of}^{Environmental Protection,}
^waste.^Hampshire.^{(207) 287-5759}
^{Maryland reported}^{1,427,585 tons to Virginia;}^{62,246 tons in 1999. In}^{Pennsylvania and West}^{Frank Diller,}
^{1,368,811 tons of MSW in}^{359,596 tons to}^{addition, the state imported}^{Virginia. C & D waste}^{MD Department of the}
^{1999, plus 145,866 tons of}^{Pennsylvania.}^{469,944 tons of construction}^{comes from 6 states.}^Environment,
^Maryland^{incinerator ash. Receiving}^{and demolition waste.}^{(410) 631-4143}

^{states, which have reported}
^{data for 2000, reported}
^{receiving 1,791,103 tons.}

CRS-14
^{Amount of}^{Destination of}^{Amount of}^{Sources of}
^State^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported Waste}^{State Contact}
^{984,558 tons of MSW in}^{39% to New Hampshire;}^{29,412 tons of MSW in}^{73% from Connecticut,}^{Brian Holdridge,}
^{1999; Mass. also exported}^{17% to Virginia;}^{1999. 224,165 tons of other}^{17% from New Hampshire.}^{Mass. Dept. of}
^{Massachusetts}^{215,000 tons of other waste}^{12% each to Ohio and}^{waste (mostly ash and}^{Environmental Protection,}
^{(mostly construction and}^Maine;^{construction and demolition}^{(617) 292-5578}
^demolition).^{10% to NY.}^waste).
^{No tracking system for}^{Ohio (54%)}^{2,840,338 tons, 10/1/99-}^{Ontario, Canada (45%),}^{Lynn Dumroese,}
^{exports, but two neigh-}^{Indiana (46%).}^{9/30/2000, an increase of}^{Illinois (23%),}^{Michigan Dept. of}
^Michigan^{boring states reported}^{nearly 1,000,000 tons in the}^{Indiana (20%),}^{Environmental Quality,}
^{85,210 tons from Michigan}^{last year. (Data converted}^{Ohio (7%),}^{(517) 373-4738}
^{in 2000.}^{from cubic yards by CRS).}^{Wisconsin (5%).}
^{619,592 tons in 1999, a 38%}^{Iowa (432,837 tons),}^{Imports were less than 1,000}^N.A.^{Jim Chiles,}
^Minnesota^{increase over 1998.}^{Wisconsin (131,912 tons),}^{North Dakota (54,460 tons),}^tons.^{Minnesota Pollution Control}^Agency,
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31051}^{South Dakota (383 tons).}^{(651) 296-7273}
^g/w
^s^.or^{May be small amounts to}^{Tennessee and Arkansas.}^{449,821 tons in 1999.}^{Louisiana accounted for}^{Mark Williams,}
^le^ak^{Tennessee and Arkansas.}^{about 300,000 tons, Alabama}^{Mississippi Department of}
^Mississippi^{about 75,000 tons, and the}^{Environmental Quality,}
^://wiki^{rest comes mostly from the}^{Memphis, Tennessee area.}^{(601) 961-5171}
^h^ttp
^{1,792,753 tons in 2000.}^{Illinois (70%) and Kansas}^{183,042 tons in 2000}^{Illinois (54%)}^{Dennis Hansen,}
^{About 40% of this is}^{(28%) were the main}^{(includes industrial and C &}^{Arkansas (29%)}^{Mo. Department of Natural}
^Missouri^{estimated to be C & D waste}^{destinations.}^{D waste).}^{Iowa (15%)}^Resources
^{or industrial waste sent to}^{(573) 751-5401}
^{MSW landfills.}
^{Small amounts.}^{North Dakota}^{31,693 tons in 2000.}^{Mostly from Idaho. Smaller}^{Pat Crowley,}
^{amounts from North Dakota}^{MT Department of Health}
^Montana^{and Wyoming (Yellowstone}^{and Environmental}
^Park).^Sciences,
^{(406) 444-5294}

CRS-15
^{Amount of}^{Destination of}^{Amount of}^{Sources of}
^State^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported Waste}^{State Contact}
^{Nebraska does not collect}^{Kansas, Colorado, and}^{Nebraska does not collect}^{98% from Iowa; the rest}^{Keith Powell,}
^{annual data on waste}^Wyoming.^{annual data on waste}^{from South Dakota.}^{Nebraska Dept. of}
^{exports. A one-time survey}^{imports, either. A one-time}^{Environmental Quality,}
^Nebraska^{reported 18,203 tons in}^{survey reported 122,500 tons}^{(402) 471-4210}
^{1997. Probably hasn’t been}^{in 1997. Probably hasn’t}
^{much change since then,}^{been much change since}
^{according to the state.}^{then, according to the state.}
^None^N.A.^{541,400 tons in 2000,}^{California. Minute amounts}^{Les Gould,}
^{according to preliminary}^{from Arizona and Utah.}^{NV Division of}
^Nevada^{state estimates.}^{Environmental Protection,}
^{(775) 687-4670,}
^{ext. 3018}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31051}^{64,000 tons in 1999.}^{Maine and Massachusetts.}^{538,700 tons in 1999, down}^{34% from 1997. Imports are}^{Primarily Massachusetts.}^{Small amounts from}^{Pierce Rigrod,}^{NH Department of}
^g/w^{New Hampshire}^{expected to continue}^{Vermont and Maine.}^{Environmental Services,}
^s^.or^{declining as a result of a}^{(603) 271-3713}
^le^ak^{permit modification.}
^://wiki^{2,508,000 tons in 1999, a}^{decrease of nearly 1,000,000}^{Mostly to Pennsylvania;}^{about 6% to Ohio.}^{836,154 tons in 1999. Most}^{goes to the Essex County}^{New York (78%),}^{Pennsylvania (14%),}^{Ray Worob,}^{NJ Department of}
^h^ttp^{tons compared to 1998.}^incinerator.^{Connecticut (6%).}^{Environmental Protection,}
^{Pennsylvania, Ohio, and}^{(609) 984-6903}
^{New Jersey}^{Virginia, which have data}
^{for the year 2000, report}
^{receiving 4,158,060 tons of}
^{MSW from New Jersey in}
^2000.
^{No MSW exports.}^N.A.^{241,771 tons in 1999, 80%}^{Mostly from El Paso, Texas.}^{John O’Connell,}
^{New Mexico}^{of which is MSW. The rest}^{is mostly maquiladora waste}^{Small amounts from other}^{areas of Texas and Mexico.}^{New Mexico Environmental}^Department,
^{from Mexican border areas.}^{(505) 827-2385}

CRS-16
^{Amount of}^{Destination of}^{Amount of}^{Sources of}
^State^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported Waste}^{State Contact}
^{5,610,000 tons in 2000,}^{Primarily Pennsylvania (4.7}^{539,000 tons in 2000. May}^{441,000 tons came from}^{Gerard Wagner,}
^{according to New York.}^{million tons), Virginia (1}^{include industrial and C & D}^{Massachusetts. Vermont,}^{NY State Department of}
^{New York}^{Four importing states report}^{a total of 6,807,167 tons}^{million tons), New Jersey}^{(648,000 tons), and Ohio}^waste.^{Connecticut, and New}^{Jersey were the other main}^{Environmental Conservation}^{(518) 402-8692}
^{from New York.}^{(466,000 tons).}^sources.
^{1,106,897 tons from July}^{Mostly to South Carolina}^{41,840 tons, July 1999-June}^{96% from Virginia; the}^{Paul Chrisman,}
^{North Carolina}^{1999 to June 2000, a 10-fold}^{increase since FY 1996.}^{and Virginia.}^2000.^{remainder from South}^Carolina.^{NC Dept. of Environment}^{and Natural Resources,}
^{(919) 733-0692 x254}
^{Small amounts.}^{South Dakota and Montana.}^{The state has no reporting}^Minnesota^{Steve Tillotson.}
^{system, but Minnesota}^{ND Dept. of Health,}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31051}^{North Dakota}^{reports 54,460 tons of MSW}^{exported to North Dakota in}^{(701) 328-5166}
^g/w^1999.
^s^.or
^le^ak^{1,039,876 tons in 1999, a}^{Primarily to Michigan and}^{1,774,134 tons received at}^{New York (26%),}^{Andrew Booker,}
^{17% increase from 1998,}^{Kentucky. Lesser amounts}^{MSW landfills in 2000, a}^{Pennsylvania (24%),}^{Ohio Environmental}
^://wiki^Ohio^{and nearly triple the amount}^{in 1993.}^{to Indiana, West Virginia,}^{and Pennsylvania.}^{63% increase over 1997, but}^{a decline of 50% from the}^{New Jersey (13%),}^{Indiana (9%).}^{Protection Agency,}^{(614) 728-5355}
^h^ttp^{peak in 1989. May include}^{Smaller amounts from 28}
^{some C & D and industrial}^{other states.}
^waste.
^{Oklahoma does not require}^N.A.^{Landfills in Oklahoma are}^N.A.^{John Roberts,}
^{reporting, and does not}^{not required to report waste}^{Oklahoma Dept. of}
^Oklahoma^{believe it exports more than}^{imports, but “there’s not all}^{Environmental Quality,}
^{incidental amounts from}^{that much” import.}^{(405) 702-5100}
^{small towns near the border.}
^{Michigan reports receiving}^Michigan^None.^N.A.^{Bruce Pope,}
^{1,277,822 tons of waste}^{Ontario Ministry of}
^{Ontario, Canada}^{from Ontario, 10/1/99 -}^{Environment and Energy,}
^{9/30/2000, an increase of}^{(416) 325-4420}

^{80% in the last year.}

CRS-17
^{Amount of}^{Destination of}^{Amount of}^{Sources of}
^State^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported Waste}^{State Contact}
^{17,682 tons in 1999.}^Idaho^{1,239,579 tons in 1999.}^{Mostly from Washington.}^{Judy Henderson,}
^Oregon^{About 6% from California.}^{OR Dept. of Environmental}^Quality,
^{(503) 229-5521}
^{553,570 tons in 2000,}^{77% to Ohio,}^{9,764,147 tons of MSW in}^{48% from New York,}^{Sally Lohman,}
^{according to neighboring}^{22% to New Jersey,}^{2000, plus 2,473,843 tons of}^{40% from New Jersey,}^{PA Department of}
^states.^{1% to Virginia.}^{industrial waste, C&D}^{4% from Connecticut,}^{Environmental Protection,}
^{waste, ash, sludge and}^{4% from Maryland,}^{(717) 787-7382}
^{asbestos. MSW imports}^{2% from Massachusetts,}
^Pennsylvania^{increased about 1.8 million}^{1% from D.C.}
^{tons in 2000, and have more}
^{than doubled since 1993,}
^{when Pennsylvania was}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31051}^{already, by far, the largest}^{net importer.}
^g/w
^s^.or^{146,950 tons in 1999.}^{Connecticut and}^{No imports.}^N.A.^{Robert Schmidt,}
^le^ak^{Massachusetts were the}^{RI Department of}
^{principal export}^{Environmental}
^://wiki^{Rhode Island}^{destinations. Some waste}^{also goes to Pennsylvania}^Management,^{(401) 222-2797 x7260}
^h^ttp^{and Ohio.}
^{Not a major exporter:}^Georgia^{862,925 tons, 7/1/98 -}^{Mostly from North Carolina;}^{Celeste Duckett,}
^{according to the state,}^{6/30/99, an increase of}^{some from Georgia.}^{SC Dept. of Health and}
^{South Carolina}^{57,377 tons of MSW were}^{nearly 30%.}^{Environmental Control,}
^{exported in FY 1999 (7/1/98}^{(803) 896-4226}
^{- 6/30/99).}
^{The state does not track}^{North Dakota, Nebraska,}^{The state does not track}^N.A.^{Jim Wente,}
^{South Dakota}^{exports, but believes small}^{amounts are exported from}^{and Wyoming.}^imports.^{SD Dept. of Environment}^{and Natural Resources,}
^{some border communities.}^{(605) 773-3153}
^{Neighboring states reported}^{Kentucky (97,178 tons)}^{Latest data, for FY 1998}^{34% from Virginia,}^{Buddy Kelly,}
^{151,229 tons of MSW from}^{Georgia (26,547 tons)}^{(8/1/97 - 7/31/98), showed}^{32% from Indiana,}^{TN Dept. of Environment}
^Tennessee^Tennessee.^{Virginia (27,504 tons).}^{imports of 297,081 tons, an}^{30% from Kentucky.}^{and Conservation}
^{increase of 79% from the}^{(615) 532-0150}

^{previous year.}

CRS-18
^{Amount of}^{Destination of}^{Amount of}^{Sources of}
^State^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported Waste}^{State Contact}
^{The state assumes that little}^{99% of the total went to}^{Texas imported 46,611 tons}^{10,362 tons from Mexico;}^{Lynne Haase,}
^{has changed since 1998,}^{New Mexico, 1% to}^{of MSW in 1999.}^{the remainder from 7 states.}^{Texas Natural Resource}
^Texas^{when 395,067 tons were}^{exported. New Mexico}^Louisiana.^{Conservation Commission,}^{(512) 239-6088}
^{reports lesser amounts}
^received.
^{About 1,000 tons of MSW}^Nevada.^{66,000 tons in 2000. The}^N.A.^{Jeff Emmons,}
^{goes from Wendover, Utah,}^{state also imported 299,000}^{Utah Dept. of}
^Utah^{to Wendover, Nevada.}^{There may also be some}^{tons of non-hazardous}^{industrial waste.}^{Environmental Quality}^{(801) 538-6748}
^{small amount of exports}
^{from Indian reservations.}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31051}^{88,350 tons in 1999.}^{Primarily New Hampshire}^{and New York.}^{No imports.}^N.A.^{Julie Hackbarth,}^{VT Dept. of Environmental}
^g/w^Vermont^{Conservation,}
^s^.or^{(802) 241-3446}
^le^ak
^{No export reporting system.}^{Tennessee and North}^{3,891,320 tons in 2000, plus}^{37% from Maryland,}^{Kathy Frahm,}
^://wiki^Virginia^{Based on reports from}^{surrounding states, CRS}^Carolina.^{an additional 580,226 tons}^{of non-MSW. Imports}^{27% from New York,}^{22% from the District of}^{VA Department of}^{Environmental Quality,}
^h^ttp^{estimates 150,000 tons of}^{declined more than 200,000}^Columbia,^{(804) 698-4376}
^exports.^{tons in 2000.}^{12% from North Carolina.}
^{832,421 tons in 1999.}^Oregon^{243,292 tons in 1999.}^{About 60% from California;}^{Ellen Caywood,}
^Washington^{the rest from Canada,}^{Oregon, Idaho, and Alaska.}^{Washington Dept. of}^Ecology
^{(360) 407-6132}
^{No tracking system.}^{Kentucky (40%),}^{250,264 tons in 1998, about}^N.A.^{Bill Rheinlander,}
^{Kentucky, Ohio,}^{Ohio (30%)}^{the same as in 1997, but a}^{WV Division of}
^{West Virginia}^{Pennsylvania, and Virginia}^{Pennsylvania (17%),}^{69% decline from its peak in}^{Environmental Protection,}
^{reported 305,257 tons from}^{Virginia (13%).}^1992.^{(304) 558-4253}
^WV.
^{250,776 tons in 1999,}^{Michigan (187,825 tons)}^{1,067,926 tons in 2000.}^{85% from Illinois,}^{Wayne Ringquist,}
^Wisconsin^{according to three}^{neighboring states.}^{Illinois (61,677 tons)}^{Indiana (1,274 tons).}^{15% from Minnesota.}^{WI Dept. of Natural}^Resources
^{(608) 267-7557}

CRS-19
^{Amount of}^{Destination of}^{Amount of}^{Sources of}
^State^{MSW Exported}^{Exported Waste}^{MSW Imported}^{Imported Waste}^{State Contact}
^{No tracking system. A}^N.A.^{The state does not track}^N.A.^{Bob Doctor,}
^{couple of communities in}^{waste imports. Very little}^{WY Department of}
^Wyoming^{very remote areas may ship}^{waste out of or into the state,}^{waste is believed to be}^imported.^{Environmental Quality,}^{(307) 473-3468}

^{but very little waste is}
^{believed to be exported.}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL31051}
^g/w
^s^.or
^le^ak
^://wiki
^h^ttp